ANALYSIS: Senators Concerned Over Overreach From New WHO Pandemic Treaty

A sign outside World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva on Aug. 17, 2020. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

Analysis

The World Health Assembly (WHA), the governing body of the World Health Organisation (WHO), met for its annual meeting in Geneva from 21 to 30 May this year.

On the agenda was the discussion of a third of the proposed 307 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005 and the latest version of the draft Pandemic Instrument or treaty, also known as the zero drafts of the “WHO CA+” (pdf).

Up for consideration, according to the UK Parliament’s commons library website, were issues such as how a pandemic will be defined, and the working of the treaty alongside the IHR.

Other issues include the guiding principles of the treaty such as human rights, sovereignty, equity, and more; and the setting up of a Conference of the Parties—a new governing body for the treaty; and further legal issues such as the IHR, withdrawal, and dispute settlement.

But as the wording of the current draft makes the treaty legally binding for all member states who sign it, it has drawn a lot of scrutiny from politicians globally.

Ringing Alarm Bells Globally

Andrew Bridgen, The Reclaim Party MP for North West Leicestershire, is one of these.

Not only is he concerned about the treaty and the amendments but also about who is controlling the WHO.

“The proposed treaties would take away all the protections that being in a democracy offers, and they would take away article 3 of the original WHO constitution, which is about respect for human rights and dignity,” he said in a statement.

“That would be replaced by a bland statement saying that there will be equity, which means that everyone would be treated equally. It also means that there would be only one solution to any international problem around the world.”

Meanwhile, Christine Anderson, a German member of the European Parliament, has warned that the instruments (treaty and IHR) will give the WHO “de facto governing power over its member states in the event of a pandemic, without involvement or consultation with national governments or national parliaments.”

She says that this is a “direct attack on the rule of the people by the people, the most elementary principle of any democracy.”

Yet a spokesperson from the WHO describes their part in the process as just a facilitator of the negotiations.

“Just as with negotiation on the pandemic accord, this is a process led by sovereign states, and the WHO secretariat is facilitating the negotiations. As with all international instruments, any amendments to IHR, if and when agreed by member states, would be determined by governments themselves, who would take any action while considering their own national laws and regulations,” they said, reported by the Daily Mail.

Australian Politicians Concerned Over WHO Oversight

In Australia, Liberal National Party (LNP) Senators Gerard Rennick, Alex Antic, United Australia Party (UAP) Senator Ralph Babet, and One Nation Senators Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts have flagged their concerns about the need for the treaty and what it covers.

UAP Senator Babet told The Epoch Times that the biggest concern about this treaty is the further entrenchment of “the undemocratic practice of blindly following the lead of an unelected globalist body.”

Echoing this statement is LNP Senator Gerard Rennick, who told The Epoch Times, “The World Health Organisation already has too much influence on decisions made by the Australian government.”

“The fact remains, though, even if Australia doesn’t sign up to the WHO treaty, there is nothing stopping politicians from following along next time. What we need to do is ensure those with the highest integrity and critically thinking politicians are serving us in Canberra. We do not need sheep,” he said.

In the U.S., while several Republicans are against the treaty, the Biden Administration has said they will sign the document.

Will the WHO Encroach on Australia’s Sovereignty

The draft treaty outlines sovereignty as follows: “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the general principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies.”

It also declares that countries will need to "uphold the purposes and objectives of the WHO CA+ and carry out their obligations ... in a manner consistent with the principles of the sovereign equality and the territorial integrity of States and that of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other States.”

According to the Australian Government Health and Department of Aged Care website, the treaty though does not overrule sovereignty.

“Any new pandemic international instrument must be subject to appropriate parliamentary processes before Australia can take binding action,” the department said on its website.

“This includes consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT). Following consideration by JSCOT, any changes to Australian law to implement the new pandemic instrument would have to be considered and passed by Parliament.”

JSCOT was established in July 2022 and has 16 members: nine Labor, four Liberal, two National, and one Green.

However, Senator Babet is not convinced.

“The government often denies that the WHO would have the power to cede sovereignty,” he said.

“We know from the pandemic years that it doesn’t take a treaty for our government to blindly follow the orders of the WHO. What we really need to do is not only decline the treaty/instrument but exit the WHO entirely so that our country can make decisions that are in the best interests of our citizens at all times.”

Turning the Spotlight Back on the WHO

Meanwhile, several politicians have contended that the most important issue in the ongoing discussion is the health organisation itself, especially those who are making decisions, with Bridgen expressing his concerns about the running of the WHO.

“It would be foolish not to see that pharmaceutical giants have a huge influence over the direction of the WHO with their lobbying power. Like many multinational corporations, their size and scale supersede national governments, with over 80 percent of the WHO budget now specified funding, and they have the ability to direct policy,” he said.

“I think it is fair to say that we are drifting away from the WHO’s original and noble ethos of promoting a democratic, holistic approach and cooperation on public health.”

Meanwhile, Babet also questions the authority of the WHO to make decisions on health policy, especially after appointing a North Korean to sit on the WHO executive board.

He hopes that by the next WHA meeting in May 2024, the Australian government will be unable to ignore the failings of the WHO and the harm their policies have caused worldwide.

“The WHO seems to have been inspired by CCP health policy, and their recommendations have caused terrible damage. Lockdowns, mandates, border closures, and government-led fear have been devastating. The damage extends well beyond health and into economic and human rights violations, too,” he said.